Making a Stink about Smoking in Movies

by on May 21, 2007 · 6 comments

(I had a major computer meltdown last week, so I’m a little late getting to this issue but..) The MPAA recently announced that it will take into account depictions of smoking in a movie when considering its rating. Apparently, it will now be more likely that a movie’s rating is more stringent if we see characters lighting up on screen.

Private ratings systems occasionally evolve to take into account changing societal norms, but this recent change to the MPAA system seems to be influenced more by politics. Excuse the pun, but there’s obviously a lot of groups out there today that make a stink about smoking. They are certainly welcome to pressure movie producers and other media providers to eliminate smoking from their art, but when they threaten government regulation as an alternative it’s an entirely different matter.

One wonders where the line will be drawn now that smoking has been deemed worthy of an “R” rating. Would a serious drama depicting drug or alcohol abuse that contained no other offending material also automatically qualify for a higher rating? If not, why not?

The best way to address this issue is with more education, not censorship. There has been no shortage of education campaigns and PSAs about the dangers of smoking over the past decades. Those efforts have made a difference. Smoking is less glamorous than ever before and the risks of smoking are widely understood. Critics should stick to those efforts instead of threatening artists with regulation if they don’t purge any depictions of smoking from their craft.

  • http://enigmafoundry.wordpress.com/ enigma_foundry

    Well, if promoting health awareness isn’t what a VOLUNTARY rating system is for, than what is?

    Smoking cannot be advertised on TV any more, and one of the very few outlets for cigarette companies to advertise is the movies. I am all for restricting this more, and the use of the MPAA rating system to choke of the last advertising outlet for cigarettes sounds like a great idea to me.

    Recall this is commercial speech, and furthermore this is a voluntary rating system

  • http://enigmafoundry.wordpress.com eee_eff

    Well, if promoting health awareness isn’t what a VOLUNTARY rating system is for, than what is?

    Smoking cannot be advertised on TV any more, and one of the very few outlets for cigarette companies to advertise is the movies. I am all for restricting this more, and the use of the MPAA rating system to choke of the last advertising outlet for cigarettes sounds like a great idea to me.

    Recall this is commercial speech, and furthermore this is a voluntary rating system

  • Theo

    Well, how voluntary is it, really? Although it is not government controlled, opting out is not really a viable commercial option.

    Second, I think the point of the piece is to focus on the arbitrary and politically correct nature of the current anti-smoking puritanism. Why not sex? All sorts of societal pathologies accrue to promiscuous sex. And yet the TV show “Friends” presents a world where everybody sleeps around without consequence. And its not even a movie. Oh, and what about swimming pools? Owning a pool is more likely to lead to the death of a child than owning a gun.

  • Theo

    Well, how voluntary is it, really? Although it is not government controlled, opting out is not really a viable commercial option.

    Second, I think the point of the piece is to focus on the arbitrary and politically correct nature of the current anti-smoking puritanism. Why not sex? All sorts of societal pathologies accrue to promiscuous sex. And yet the TV show “Friends” presents a world where everybody sleeps around without consequence. And its not even a movie. Oh, and what about swimming pools? Owning a pool is more likely to lead to the death of a child than owning a gun.

  • http://enigmafoundry.wordpress.com/ enigma_foundry

    The key point that I am making above is that smoking in movies is not usually about artistic motivation, but it is one of commercial speech, i.e., the cigarette company pays money to the film producers to include a shot of smoking.

    Thus, it is different than your other examples, because the component of Sex, in say Sex and the City is part of the entertainment.

    Commercial Speech has a different level of First Amendment protection then other forms of speech, although it is certainly true the court has increasingly broadened the protections afforded commercial speech.

  • http://enigmafoundry.wordpress.com eee_eff

    The key point that I am making above is that smoking in movies is not usually about artistic motivation, but it is one of commercial speech, i.e., the cigarette company pays money to the film producers to include a shot of smoking.

    Thus, it is different than your other examples, because the component of Sex, in say Sex and the City is part of the entertainment.

    Commercial Speech has a different level of First Amendment protection then other forms of speech, although it is certainly true the court has increasingly broadened the protections afforded commercial speech.

Previous post:

Next post: